there may be mad dogs over in Kansas, it does not necessitate Texans coming to seek to wipe them out... contain them, yes, aid those seeking out of the area, yes.. but anything more would have to be at the value-judging of the individuals wanting to do that more, not dragging others in along with them..
Please help me understand this statement Robert. In today's United States we live under a federal system. If Kansas does not have the resources available to stop the "mad dogs" as you put it, others (FBI, ATF, etc) from various parts of the country come to aid Kansas and not just by containing the mad dogs but by either killing or capturing them. These individuals who work for these federal agencies were not forced to go to Kansas nor were they forced to join the agencies they work for. They willingly accepted a position to help others from having their rights violated. Now there are times when one must choose containment and help others escape, yes I can understand that especially during the cold war as I said in another post the benefits do not outweigh the costs in a direct confrontation in these circumstances. The same can be applied to a hostage situation a police department is faced with, going in with guns blazing first without assessing the situation and taking risk management into account is not prudent. But then there comes a time when one must attack and advance into the house, or village, or state or country. How long can one run away from evil? To flee from it and abandon all that one has built around them to be taken by evil? There are times Robert when one must draw a line in the sand and say no further! You will not take my village without a fight from me! Nor does evil make any guarantees it will not pursue you should you decide to run away.
But according to this, you would advocate each state fend for itself if faced with overwhelming numbers of "mad dogs". So rather than united we stand, I guess divided we stand? By not helping to stop evil, are you not sanctioning the continuation of evil? Is that an Objectivist ideal?
If Kansas falls, so be it so long as the state I live in doesn't fall? During WW2 people from Texas were defending Hawaii after it was attacked, why do you suppose that is? And where do you draw the line of picking which territory to defend? What obligation do Houstonians have to help defend San Antonians? Or what obligation do south side Houstonians have to defend north side Houstonians? What obligation do the residents of Oak street Houston Texas have to help defend the residents of Maple street Houston Texas? Let everyone else fall around me so long as I'm far away still standing, watching as others are slaughtered? Sanctioning the very evil that one observes because one is sitting idly by doing nothing to stop that evil is not an Objectivist ideal.
Robert Malcolm said:
Since I lived thru that time, and my then wife and I sponsored a couple of them, will merely say that those of the South Vietnam who did see the end coming, and who would not sanction the 'new order' - they left, as boat people, from the mad dogs which were those of the North...while those who left, while intitially losing all but the shirts on their backs, ended up gaining immensely where they were appreciated, by not sanctioning and thus not becoming the victims."
To which Michael Dickey responded:
Mr. Malcolm, of the estimated 1.5 million Vietnamese Refugees, 'Boat People' best estimates suggest that 500,000 of them drowned at sea. In one single incident the navy of Thailand blockaded a fleet of refugees and in that incident alone it is thought some 50,000 drowned at sea almost as many as the number of Americans who died in the entire war. Many nations simply collected these refugees and handed them right over to the murderous communist North Vietnamese government.
Thank you Michael for pointing that out. As I read Malcolm's callous statement I immediately thought of the half million that drowned at sea trying to escape. What happened Robert did you have selective amnesia as you were living through that time?